Those of us who follow this story in Canada know that the draft rules for the oil sector have been promised multiple times and multiple times they have failed to materialize. The only logical conclusion is that Canada is not serious about regulating emissions from the tar sands. If Joe Oliver wants his plea to stick to “facts and science” to be taken seriously, his government should start taking climate science and scientists seriously.

Here is yet another example of how the Canada's tar sands companies do not fully understand the consequences of the extraction process.
Excerpt from an article at The Toronto Star:
Oil spills at a major oil sands operation in Alberta have been ongoing for at least six weeks and have cast doubts on the safety of underground extraction methods, according to documents obtained by the Star and a government scientist who has been on site.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. has been unable to stop an underground oil blowout that has killed numerous animals and contaminated a lake, forest, and muskeg at its operations in Cold Lake, Alta.
The documents indicate that, since cleanup started in May, some 26,000 barrels of bitumen mixed with surface water have been removed, including more than 4,500 barrels of bitumen.
The scientist said Canadian Natural Resources is not disclosing the scope of spills in four separate sites, which have been off bounds to media and the public because the operations are on the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range, where there is active weapons testing by the Canadian military.
The documents and photos show dozens of animals, including beavers and loons, have died, and that 30,600 kg of oily vegetation has been cleared from the latest of the four spill zones.
The company’s operations use an “in situ” or underground extraction technology called “cyclic steam stimulation,” which involves injecting thousands of gallons of superhot, high-pressure steam into deep underground reservoirs. This heats and liquefies the hard bitumen and creates cracks through which the bitumen flows and is then pumped to the surface.
The scientist, who asked not to be named for fear of losing their job, said the operation was in chaos.
“Everybody (at the company and in government) is freaking out about this,” said the scientist. “We don’t understand what happened. Nobody really understands how to stop it from leaking, or if they do they haven’t put the measures into place.”
Here is yet another example of how the Canada's tar sands companies do not fully understand the consequences of the extraction process.
Excerpt from an article at The Toronto Star:
Oil spills at a major oil sands operation in Alberta have been ongoing for at least six weeks and have cast doubts on the safety of underground extraction methods, according to documents obtained by the Star and a government scientist who has been on site.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. has been unable to stop an underground oil blowout that has killed numerous animals and contaminated a lake, forest, and muskeg at its operations in Cold Lake, Alta.
The documents indicate that, since cleanup started in May, some 26,000 barrels of bitumen mixed with surface water have been removed, including more than 4,500 barrels of bitumen.
The scientist said Canadian Natural Resources is not disclosing the scope of spills in four separate sites, which have been off bounds to media and the public because the operations are on the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range, where there is active weapons testing by the Canadian military.
The documents and photos show dozens of animals, including beavers and loons, have died, and that 30,600 kg of oily vegetation has been cleared from the latest of the four spill zones.
The company’s operations use an “in situ” or underground extraction technology called “cyclic steam stimulation,” which involves injecting thousands of gallons of superhot, high-pressure steam into deep underground reservoirs. This heats and liquefies the hard bitumen and creates cracks through which the bitumen flows and is then pumped to the surface.
The scientist, who asked not to be named for fear of losing their job, said the operation was in chaos.
“Everybody (at the company and in government) is freaking out about this,” said the scientist. “We don’t understand what happened. Nobody really understands how to stop it from leaking, or if they do they haven’t put the measures into place.”http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/09/business/global/leak-at-oil-sands-proj...
(Original article at the Star, but somehow this link triggers The Economist spam filter)

"Joe Oliver, the minister for natural resources (Canada), insisted that Keystone XL would win approval if only the Obama administration stuck to “facts and science”."

What a laughing statement from Harper Minister, a party which has internationally established itself a party of "ideology" and muzzling and punishing scientists who dare to bring scince and facts in any discussion. Actually, scientists and statisticians have banned in all departments to make any statement or provide any facts to media without first getting approval from "Minsters" pndits and communication officers, who are basically school drop outs in terms of their education and experience and a "sheep" to follow Harperian religion/ideology.

If Canada would let us have some of that fresh water I know where we can get some Mexicans to build all the pipelines cheap! Texas. Pay them next to nothing work them like slaves and keep all the profits so you can move to Dubai. You'll see a Hitlerian genius when you look in the mirror.

Rapacious investors and luddite conservatives in it 100% for their own generation and screw anyone who comes after... accompanied by billion$ upon billion$ of conservative backing of the oil-industry mantra of drill, baby, drill.

Paid mouthpieces in it for the cash, baby, one way or the other. Pollution? "Oh, I'll just move with my money!"

Or their motivation can come down to as simple as "I need a job to put food on the table for my family" (Nevermind the poisons released upon familieS...

The company is happy though! Ka-ching! Petro-dollar purchased canadian government, in a country bumpkin-22 million person, *huge* country. Who has the truly big pockets in that backwoods country and can buy anything? Hmmm... I wonder.

By insulting an entire country you betray the blind prejudices behind your so-called argument. I'm sure that's easier than dealing with the truth, which is that Americans are the one's burning all that oil. At present it is being purchased from some of the most undemocratic and repressive regimes on the planet. Additionally, Canada is the largest trading partner of the United States. Let me explain what that means; money sent to Canada for oil in large part comes back to the U.S., strengthening both economies. Call us country bumpkins if you wish but it's the Americans that are renowned for their ignorance of the world. By the way, your next door neighbour has approximately 33 million people. Apparently, your president has no more knowledge than you do. Remember your choices when the Saudi regime collapses and world oil markets go crazy.

Canada is, in fact, much more rural than the US, by any measure you want to use. 33 million people, and quite large. Where is Canada's New York.

Compare Canada's extreme rich to the United States extreme rich. No comparison.

These are facts. Again, don't take it so personally.

What I was saying was that when that few people have an extremely rich entity show up, such as say Exxon, with more money than God, Exxon can get anything it wants if they really want it. This applies to CNOOC, BP, Chevron, Total... Extremely rich corporations who want something from canada: A piece of wilderness that not very many people are "using."

All that company needs to do is open up its checkbook, like it does in America with slightly more complexity, and say "we will pay more money than the GDP of your province" into the community, into the government, and into wages. This is an illustrative example. Can Exxon do it if they see money in it? Yes they can.

They can make sure the right people get rich, get connected, get support, get organized, get jobs, and/or get into the right positions in government (and keep on getting...), in order that that megacorporation gets what it wants in your comparatively low-income province/country. It's simple: just look at Canada from the perspective of American Chevron or Exxon, or British BP, all very well capitalized.

My point was if you wanted to dig up all the tar sand you found in Marin County, California, you would encounter very well connected opposition at all levels. In Canada, the opponents won't matter much in the process, because they have little power, and Exxon,etc. will buy/install people in power if it takes ten or twenty years, case in point the rise to power of the Conservative Party in Canada in the last two decades. Somehow I doubt that you can claim that major raw materials interests did not/do not buoy that political faction just like they buoy certain factions in the US. Trillions of dollars buys a lot of juice, for the juicemakers which American (good point) cars run on.

That is the way it is. Do I like it? No. Do I support tar sand refining? Very much against it. I try, and 3 years ago I stopped buying gasoline and went to natural gas, hoping that a more varied marketplace would lessen the oil monopoly's strangle hold on the overall market or at least lessen american geopolitical necessities for oil because of everyone's, including my, demand.

I apologize for sounding glib or like a snob or a jingoistic, superior american, when I was describing the power differential between a sparsely populated country and an extremely well capitalized, foreign energy company.

I am entirely against the exploitation of the canadian tar sands, including my personal choices, and I am in full solidarity with the canadian people who oppose this truly massive environmentally decimating occurrence, which will escalate cancer rates and render hundreds of previously pristine square miles into unlivable toxic areas for any animal.

As for the saudi regime, I doubt it will collapse but I would really prefer america reduced its dependence on oil, period. Wind and solar.

Where is Canada's New York.
.
Um . . . Toronto? Take a look at what percentage of Canada's total population is there, compared to what percentage of the US population is in New York. Canada may have a lot more rural space. But its population is actually more urban.

It is time consuming to deal with this post because it is so full of nonsense:

1.As the article mentions, it is Canada whose emissions are rising and America's that are falling. Currently they are about the same. Very soon, Canada's emissions will be higher especially as the tar sands projects ramp up further.

2. "It (America's oil purchases) is being purchased from some of the most repressive regimes on the planet". That is so amusing. Do you know where Canada (the eastern provinces)import their oil from? The Middle East. Google it. Imports amount to half the oil consumption in Canada

3.Another idiotic statement. "money sent to Canada for oil in large part comes back to the U.S. (in exports), strengthening both economies". I don't suppose you know that Canada currently runs a significant surplus in trade with Canada. Also the US is much more important to Canada than vice versa: 20% of US exports go to Canada and 75% of Canada's exports go to the US. I suggest you marshal the facts before you take pen in hand.

4."Call us country bumpkins if you wish but it's the Americans that are renowned for their ignorance of the world". My boy, you sound somewhat sulky there. A large number of Americans do not feel the need to travel abroad, they travel domestically. Their reason is similar to that of 65 million foreigners (second largest in the world) who visit the US as travelers each year - there is a lot to see here.

5. "Remember your choices when the Saudi regime collapses and world oil markets go crazy". Seems you are hoping? America imports most of its ME oil from Saudi Arabia with which it has a symbiotic relationship: US supplies security with its vast military bases in SA, and SA supplies oil. It seems to bother you tremendously that the US is not dependent on Canada. I remember Canadians a few years ago issuing threats that Americans would freeze in the dark if they didn't toe the line with Canada. That is so amusing as we watch America move towards energy (oil and gas) self sufficiency.

I am sure you know that Canada still exports asbestos to third world countries. Their poor people, who don't know any better, put it in their homes where it eventually kills them. America banned the sale of asbestos years ago: both to its residents and those abroad who don't know any better. canada bans the use of asbestos within Canada but it seems is happy to kill foreigners with it.

Are you aware that Canada pumps 200 billion liters of raw untreated sewage into seas and waterways every year? Once again do what I say not what i do.

Most Americans are unaware that there are already pipelines from Edmunton to the U.S. as well as to Burnaby on the Pacific coast. The oil is going to be exported no matter what you think about the tar sands. Personally, I would rather it stay in the ground, but it is not going to. Canada stands to gain too much from its export.

So, either it is sold to the U.S. or it is sold to the Chinese. Take your pick.

But the US is keen on heavy oil -- 2/3 of California crude production -- even though even the US EPA agrees it has a significantly higher GHG/ barrel footprint than Alberta oilsands feedstocks.
Look at Table 9-1 in the California climate change regulation. In-state producers of heavy crude benefit from 10x the free CO2 quota allocation that in-state producers of conventional sweet crude oil receive. The regulation caps GHGs associated with all product supplied (imports and domestic production, with full coverage in place in 2015). No free quota, whatsoever, for the foreign suppliers, under the California GHG regulation--even though they have the same obligation California suppliers have to surrender quota. This is tthe model for Obama's federal regulation.
The result? California charges a higher net carbon charge on hydro power imports than on gasoline produced in in-state refineries from California heavy oil.
Who, looking at the facts, can continue to report on these moves as if they are environmental protection measures? This is green-washing trade protectionism, all the way.

The reality is that America wants to delay this pipeline so that Shale oil production gets a kick start domestically. The president is playing double politics here. He is giving a boost to shale oil production by not allowing Canadian oil to flood the Texas refineries, and he is pacifying the greens by giving them a token victory. Eventually the pipeline will go east and west from Alberta, and the oil will flow to China and Europe, but till then everyone gets to win. Except off-course the Alberta oil sands operators that got their big boost when US invaded Iraq in first place.

I guess you have to tell those oil sands operators that what goes around comes around, and that politicians eat their own mother for lunch if they could, so don't build your future on the back of politics.

Lucelle, at the risk of hurting your feelings I have to say that the reality is that anyone who believes he can dismiss a comment solely on the basis of those three words beginning a sentence has a serious language / logic problem. This remains true regardless of whether Homer's comments were clearly correct or patently wrong. You might consider consulting the many helpful books on language and logic available in a library near you.

"ya know; the reality is, that the thing is:" while Lucille's comment may be an over simplification, y'know" it is not wholly:"y'know" without merit. Y'know" Politics is not necessarily logical, "Y'know?"

The Greenhouse Gas "debate" long ago ran off the rails as most participants adopted fundamentalist beliefs which ensured rational analysis of the various problems hadn't a chance. The Tooth Fairy Brigade's certainties about "green" alternatives are matched by the equally confident followers of the "She'll be Right Jack" dismiss it all mentality who "know" there's no problem.
When cheap supplies of a range of non-renewable resources aren't available, I hate to think how our species will react.

Valid point. Although I don't think your last sentence will be so much of an issue. We're already seeing a gradual increase in alternative fuels, and even a fracking boom. The cost of oil will continue to increase to the point where its no longer the primary fuel, and something else will gradually rise to replace it. We'll be just fine.

Your optimism re something will turn up is a human trait which had evolutionary value in helping our species deal with the uncertain savannah world our ancestors faced, but its use by date has more than arrived. Resources are finite, and with population and per capita consumption both increasing, there's an understandable grasping for modern equivalents of the Philosopher's Stone and Perpetual Motion Machines.
When I began worrying about these issues in the mid 40s I was told that fusion and plastics meant everything would be all right until our Sun did what all Red Dwarfs eventually do. Cognitive dissonance helps many to still believe this, which I'm sure is comforting but --- ?

Extreme pessimism is also an evolutionarily advantageous trait, apparently. No matter where you look, you see a doomsday theory of some sort. Remember Y2K? Or the Mayan calendar? Or the Jesus is going to return in the year 1000, I mean 2000, or maybe its 2014? And now the great possibility of the Zombie apocalypse, which people are now actually preparing for. No joke.

Peak oil was really popular years ago, and it's been discredited recently with flat-lining demand for oil. Why has demand for oil tapered off? Because the price has risen. If you just take a moment to consider the basic economics, you'll realize how ridiculous it is to expect the price of oil to turn into some major catastrophe. As demand for oil increases, the price will increase, thus reducing the demand. This will in turn promote substitute goods, such as alternative energies, alternative sources of transportation, and increases in efficiency. It was just this year, for example, that Tesla took the top spot in Consumer Reports for Car of the Year. BMW launched an electric car to compete with it. A significant fraction of other vehicles sold are hybrids. Do you see where I'm going with this? The market will react to rising demand for oil, and correct for it. It already has. After all, oil is not a special commodity. It's no different than food, or iron ore, or any other essential good.

Too much importance has been placed on oil, and this dates back to the oil shocks of the 1970's. Well, OPEC no longer has a stranglehold on the market. There is no longer a monopoly on the supply of oil. Everything is going to be alright.

kenroberts83 , your comment re extreme pessimism having an evolutionary advantage suggests statistics and philosophy of science aren’t your fortes. Why not re-read what you’ve written?
Adding to that your suggested “basic economics” begins to make it look as if you won’t have much free time for anything else. Populist rants from all quarters about the different fundamentalist standpoints are equally asinine; but it helps “True Believers” of all stripes feel both noble and happy.
Evolution hasn’t been a complete success when it comes to coping with the far more dramatic increases in affluence, let alone preparing our species for what lies ahead. Just re-read whatever you do decide to re-read. It may not help, but it shouldn’t do any irreparable harm to you --- except dampening your optimism?

Bang on! The technology to crack CO2 and water to recombine as ethanol or methanol is advancing rapidly. These will be the transport fuels of the future. Possibly slightly more expensive but not significantly so. All the metals and minerals ever mined are still here on the planet to be recovered and re-purposed. Additionally, we can process materials from sea water. The only real issues are environmentally friendly power and some reasonable limitation on population.

Domestic politics? You mean wacko Democratic/lefty/enviro/Hollywood-elite politics. Indeed the majority of Democrats (including Susan Rice and Hilary Clinton, to name two prominent ones), labor unions, and the vast majority of Americans (82% according to recent polls) support Keystone -- 82% is an astronomically large number:
forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2013/06/07/keystone-approval-rate-reaches-new-high/
If anything, this just proves Obama isn't listening to what Americans want!

We watched the Alaskan pipeline grow here in Alaska and we watched in the "Lower 48" The steel industry was busy, when we had one, thousands were employed for approximately 2 to 3 years to build the pipeline. At the same time small refineries were built and also stations to transfer the oil to awaiting tankers to take the crude oil to California to refine. Times are different now, the line could be built employing the thousands, perhaps. But the tar sand oil will go to Texas, refined and sent off to Asia. Not to the US or back to Canada. AND.... the way the taxes are set up.... it isn't taxed to the benefit of the US... the oil companies make billions avoiding taxation. We have smelled this before.

US Republican politicians politicized this issue, but it seems PoTUS Barrack wants to put Canada under the bus too in addition to dealing with it in a political manner as well.
Actually, Canada wins no matter what the President does. If Barrack decides to cancel the project, then this will play into old Canadian anti-American attitudes and maybe get the country off of its current ego-satisfied positions and beliefs. It will get people riled up, and eager to diversify away from the Americans - culturally and economically. Can't be bad in the long run.
We live with the Americans and have to deal with them every day, that won't change. But accepting whatever they do and deferring to them automatically might not happen without a slight pause to think of alternative actions. All good in my book.

As a concerned Canadian I can only praise Pres. Obama for his stance. Seeing photos of what oil seepage has done to the trees and ponds at the Primrose, Alberta site there is no way tar sands operations should be promoted and pipelines should be prohibited entirely.

I'm pretty sure that NAFTA covered all of this. It seems that NAFTA, in it's original form, may be needing some change. Maybe this will be a good thing. Canada can now feel free to look for other trading partners and the US can give up it's ROFR on hydrocarbons exports from Canada.

President Obama, Canada is not the 51 state !!
We are a sovereign country that will sell it's resources
to whomever we want to.China and India will be pleased to do business with Canada.
In the meantime let the Americans keep get oil from it's friends in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and all those other beacons of democracy and human rights.
Also stop killing Canadians with your coal fired power plants in Ohio, which produce an order of magnitude more emissions than the oil sands !!

With the knowledge that we are causing potentially catastrophic climate change with our greenhouse gas emissions, the mining of these tar sands is pure suicidal madness. While CO2 levels are getting ever higher, we are turning a carbon sink into a source of CO2 pollution. Future generations will be cursing us for our shortsighted greed. This is cognitive dissonance on a global scale.

It must be stopped, and the last thing we need is pipelines to enable this to continue.

The ominous cloud held over our heads for years has been "peak oil", the point at which the production of crude oil decreased because of dwindling reserves. The Saudis have now redefined the term. They speak of peak oil as the point where world DEMAND for oil begins to dwindle. The US has the available reserves to make the Alberta oil sands economically unattractive. We also have the ability to exploit those reserves. Instead of standing at the border and shouting insults, why not focus on what we have power to control.

Meanwhile, George Mitchell, one of the most important innovators of modern America, died a week ago ago, almost unnoticed, and Ford announced that they will be selling F-150s with NG engines.

Strange as it sounds, I believe both leaders love the idea of punting this football back and forth well into 2015.

I am certain Harper would love to run against Obama in 2015. The opposition Liberals and NDP can take turns representing American interests but Harper knows Canadians like to pick their own side in a fight.

Obama, when he looks at the low info voters chaining themselves to the White House fence, is thankful they are so focused on Keystone they forget about the shale oil boom and the 30 other pipelines Enbridge and TransCanada want to build to fuel that boom. I bet he also hopes folks don't read the State Dept brief that assures everyone there enough rail and barge capacity to handle the load if Keystone is nixed.

Apparently running 100 car unit trains 15 times a day through small town America is safer than the state-of-the-art pipeline that's, you know, right there...

So we have some photographer complaining about the Alberta oil sands (they call it that). So what? Alberta is developing their oil sands, no matter what a speaker at TED thinks of it. Whether the oil extracted is pumped through the Keystone pipeline, to be processed in our refineries or gets sent some other place makes not a bit of difference. The political posturing on this issue is absurd.

Whatever your views on the tar sands (they call it that), the pipeline makes a big difference. Shipping that stuff by train or to refineries overseas is going to be much more expensive.

I think it is pretty uncontroversial to describe Albert tar sands operations as one of the most environmentally destructive ways to extract energy on the planet. It's hard not to notice the vast toxic wastelands created by the extraction process. You don't need to watch the TED video if you don't like it, you can see them on Google earth.
The pipeline will make it cheaper and easier to continue this process and expand it. It's not political posturing to oppose the pipeline on that basis.

Just was up there in Calgary, Lubumbashi. The correct name is the Athabasca oil sands. It is in full operation. Train shipment is comparable in cost to pipeline. However, it has a major advantage in that Obama's friend, Warren Buffett, owns the Burlington Northern, a major beneficiary if the pipeline is held up.

The oil (not tar) that is produced there will find its way to the marketplace as long as oil prices are high enough. Do you want to stop the flow of oil from the deposit? Reduce the price of oil.

I know "they" call it that, if, by "they" you mean the Syncrude oil company, because they have paid for a PR campaign to rebrand it.
Yes it is very nice in Calgary, and it is a very long way from Athabasca but it is where The Athabasca Oil Sands Corporation is based - are you an employee? Personally I think it would be more honest of them should move to the middle of the massive toxic tar filled wasteland in Athabasca which they created.

If you want to stop the oil from the tar sands, you just have to make sure the energy companies pay the full cost of doing including all externalities.

It's called "oil sands" pal. There is no "TAR" there, only oil. You can tell instantly if someone is for or against it by this reference alone. Everyone against it uses the words "tar sands" every single time.

And for you uneducated people just a little info. Alberta spends more dollars than anyone else on technology and other methods of greenhouse gas reductions and land reclamation, so get off your high horses. The U.S. is one of the top two dirtiest emitters of greenhouse gasses on the planet, so you really have no room to talk about us here in alberta.

The commonly used term in Alberta is "Athabasca oil sands". There is no tar in the oil sands field - just crude oil.

Nobody "created" any toxic chemicals found in the Athabasca oil sands. They have been there for a millennium. The environmental costs are a responsibility of Canada and Alberta. Let them take care of their problems and we can better focus problems we have control over. Canceling the Keystone pipeline will not affect the exploitation of the Athabasca oil sands, according to the State Department report. It will only affect our ability to benefit from it.

So that gigantic sea of toxic sludge in Fort Mackay you can see from space in was all made by nature? Wow things like mercury and arsenic were created in nature, who knew?

Benefit, yes, in terms of very slightly cheaper gas. Who pays for the ruination? BP is going to have to pay a fine of billions for temporary pollution in the Gulf of Mexico, and rightly so. But when a Canadian corporation turns vast areas of pristine wilderness into permanent poisonous wasteland, there is no fine, only profit.

I don't know where you are from, but tell me, would you really want that kind of development in your own state?

Uneducated is that so?
I am not from the US or Canada, so I am not subject to your flexible language rules. In my country we speak plain English and can tell when someone is trying to use a bullshit term. Where I grew up, we spread tarmacadam on the roads after the John Macadam. The Americans shortened it to tarmac.
Note, he didn't call it oilsandmacadam, because he was a plain speaking Scot, not a North American PR bullshit artist.
Go to an auto-shop and ask for help shifting the "bitumen" or "oilsand" spots off your car body. Don't be suprised if you get some funny looks.

So you're from Canada, tell us you are happy, perfectly happy about a private company profiting while turning a vast area of wilderness into a toxic wasteland where nothing can live, all the while leaching poisons into the Athabasca river.
Tell us that this is an acceptable form of industrial development in your own country.

"uneducated" was directed at those out there who jump on the "holier than thou" bandwagon when it comes to the oilsands and greenhouse gas emissions, condemning them as the dirtiest thing on the planet, without doing any research on the subject. The usual "lemmings". It was not directed at you personally. Unless of course you fall into that catagory yourself? Look at greenhouse gas emissions, or co2 emissions, or whatever other kinds of emissions produced by the oilsands plants, and they do not come close not even by a country mile, compared to the emissions produced in the U.S. and China and India from coal fired power plants. But it is sooo much easier for you fools to jump on the environuts band wagon and condemn the oilsands, meanwhile turning a blind eye to the big emitters out there. If you fall into that catagory then maybe you are uneducated.
Yes, the oilsands plants do turn vast areas of wilderness into wastelands (not toxic wastelands as you suggest) because that is required to get the oil out stupid. And i call you that because like i said, if you bothered to do any research at all, instead of being a bandwagon jumper and a lemming, then you would know that those same oilsands companies "reclaim" and "reforest" all the land in an area when they are done extracting all the oil. Which is more than we can say for the countries that scotland imports some of its oil from. The united Kingdom are the biggest bunch of hypocrites going when it comes to denouncing oil from Canada while they import some of the dirtiest oil on the planet. The only reason they jump on Canada is because we are the most honest when it comes to our standards com[pared to any of the other places out there who don't and won't report on their own emission standards.

So yes, i am perfectly happy with companies profiting from the oilsands development. They pay billions of dollars in royalties to the government, which pays for a lot of services, and contrary to what you believe, they reclaim the land, not turn it into "toxic waste dumps where nothing can live.

The sludge that is there, along with the mercury and arsenic (in whatever concentrations) were all there in that location before the oil was separated from the sand and transported away. It is a simple mass balance question, Lumbashi, familiar to anyone with an elemental knowledge of chemistry. The oil companies are not hauling in any materials to the oil sands. They are only removing material.

We have copper mines and coal mines in my state that provide basic materials for our economy and jobs for thousands of people. They have been in operation for over 100 years now, and we have been able to manage them well enough to preserve our environment.

Yes, uneducated, Lubumbashi - at least with respect to the difference between tar and crude oil.
The tar that is used to surface roads is a waste OUTPUT from the oil refining process. The crude oil extracted from the oil sands is the INPUT for the oil refining process. Why the confusion? I doubt that there was any confusion. This is an example of rhetorical licence.
The disruption of the ecology by the Athabasca oil sands project is less significant than the disruption caused by a metropolitan area of similar size. There are regulations in place that require recovery of disturbed areas in the oil sands project. I know of no metropolitan area that has similar constraints imposed on it.

I have heard all about the reclamation and reforestation "efforts". Forgive me if I say it is bullshit. I have seen the reclamation efforts in Appalachia after mountaintop removal and it is not pretty, an utterly changed, poorer landscape and devastated ecosystem. Maybe in this much devalued state the land is in some way "reclaimed". But what is lost is lost forever. But that's coal, and the process is relatively straightforward. The tar sands are much, much worse. All they have managed to "reclaim" are some areas which were used for dumping the original forest on. The euphemistically name "tailing ponds" have never been reclaimed successfully. No-one knows if this will even be possible and they are not even willing to slow down operations until they do. This they don't even know if the true cost of the extraction.
Sure, I have seen the pretty pictures of bison roaming over a former oil pit, but how much do you think that cost/hectare? Do you really think the oil company is going to pay for that over the > 500sqkm they have already despoiled? What has the history of such operations told us?

Go on, tell us this is Canada's finest example of sustainable resource extraction. Tell us you really believe that its going to be a lovely bison filled forest park afterwards. Tell us you really are that gullible.

You can sling all the insults you like. You can call me stupid, uneducated, fool, environut lemming (surely you can do better?)or a hypocrite too if that makes you feel better, but I am not saying "holier than thou" to anyone. We are not talking about the US, China, India etc, we are talking about Canada. I am denouncing the tar sands operations in Canada for what they are, not in comparison with anywhere else. I am saying that there are better ways of managing the planet than this.

I am not making a nationalist point here. It doesn't matter where I come from. But it does matter where you come from. You are defending the tar sands extraction in Canada, as a Canadian.

If you, as a Canadian, can look upon the horrendous destruction in Fort Walker and the best you can say is "Oh the Americans, Chinese, Indians and Scots are worse us, and I am sure the oil company will fix it all when they are done", then I have to say you don't deserve to live in Canada. You might be happier in some big smoky city, in a country where people who trust the government and big corporations have free rein and the stupid uneducated environut lemming fools like me are all in jail.

There you go, comparing Alberta to Appalachia. How about you compare Alberta to Alberta? Comparing mountain tops to plains. Again, someone with no clue to what is happening.
And sorry pal, but they are starting to reclaim tailings ponds. Again, get your facts straight first please. Its part of the research that goes on here. Of course you are not a lemming and you know about that right? You know that over 70 square hectares of land has been reclaimed and is returning to forests right? has been going on for years right? Because its part of the law and part of the companies lease agreements right? You know its overseen by the provincial government to make sure this happens right? You're not a lemming right?
try looking here and you may get a little insight...

Is it really that big of a deal if a very small part of Canada is torn apart to provide vast sums of oil? Canada is a massive country, and tar sands production will have absolutely no noticeable effect on the ecosystem whatsoever. No one likes to see nature torn apart, but lets look at the bigger picture.

Thank you, finally someone prepared to talk about the actual issues involved instead of tossing insults.
It's a fair point, Canada is massive and the tar sands are tiny.
So let's look at both sides of the ledger.
On the minus side:
The (open mined) tar sands are small in comparison with Canada's total area. But they are not tiny, when compared to Canada's existing wilderness. They are absolutely enormous, perhaps the biggest store of hydrocarbons outside the Arabian peninsula. 480 square kilometers have already been completely destroyed. They are literally a tar filled wasteland where nothing can live, apart perhaps from bacteria. The companies involved have to fire propane cannons all day long to prevent birds from landing there, because if they do, they die. It's true, given enough money and time, it can be repaired. But nobody really knows how much money. A reasonable estimate is around $100k/hectare, roughly 5 Billion for the area currently despoiled. I have serious doubts the oil companies will pay this and I don't trust the provincial government to make them. This means they will likely do something lesser, or eventually go bust and leave it to the state to pay the bills, which, in my personal experience, is normally what happens in cases like these.
This area is getting bigger much faster than it is being "repaired". The tailing ponds are the largest unlined tailing ponds in the world and they naturally leak into the much larger riparian habitat. For sure, there has always been some natural seepage from the tar sands, but a lot of most recent science tells us that the tailing ponds have are leaking and contaminating the Athabasca river. These tailing ponds take decades to settle into a state where reclamation is even theoretically feasible. If and when reclamation is complete, the land will no longer be a toxic wasteland, but it won't be boreal forest either. At best it will be a very much reduced habitat, commercial forest plantations, for example.
Then there is the potentially much larger area where "in situ" recovery is done. This is, of course much less environmentally damaging than tearing the entire face off the earth, but the damage done is considerable none the less. They don't strip the entire forest away, just fill it full of roads and oil wells pumping masses of fresh water and steam underground to melt the tar. This naturally causes ground water contamination. Because of the necessity of roads, deforestation and activity, the wild character of the area is gone. There are studies suggesting 90% reduction in the numbers of various key species such as brown bears. This is therefore consuming wilderness, one of Canada's greatest resources.
And just to extract a barrel of the oil from the tar sands, requires between 1 and 1/5 of a barrel of oil and between 2 and 5 barrels of water. When the oil is turned to gas and other products it is sold as cheap as possible, and consequently used very wastefully.
You say "Noone likes to see nature torn apart". Yes, I agree with you. But instead, far too many people turn away from it, block it out, rationalize like my insulting friend above. They don't like to see nature torn apart so they look away and don't see it.
On the plus side, we get very marginally cheaper gas, some transient jobs in Canada. A few people get rather rich from the process, and I would say, mostly unpleasant ones, who really don't give a damn about nature, like my insulting friend above.
These people are depressingly common. His words betray him - e.g. "environut". They have been accustomed, trained themselves in fact, to see care for the environment to a kind of mental illness. Of course they believe that the environment matters, They think it will be ok to have a few parks and trees because that looks nice. They think it's ok, because it's not as bad as China. They think it is ok because they are so poorly educated that they can't see the difference between a wilderness and a manufactured facsimile. Someday, I guess even Suncor's massive "tar island" will be a perfectly pleasant place to have a picnic. But if you think that there is no noticeable impact on the ecosystem then you must be kidding yourself, or else you don't know much about the ecosystem to start with.
There is no real way to say X many millions of hectares of destroyed land is worth Y many jobs and Z many barrels of oil. It all depends on your taste and what kind of world you want to live in afterwards. I can't square that circle, but I know I want to live in a different world than those people.
For me, it's just a really poor deal for the loss of so much wilderness.

Here is yet another example of how the Canada's tar sands companies do not fully understand the consequences of the extraction process.

Excerpt from an article at The Toronto Star:

Oil spills at a major oil sands operation in Alberta have been ongoing for at least six weeks and have cast doubts on the safety of underground extraction methods, according to documents obtained by the Star and a government scientist who has been on site.

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. has been unable to stop an underground oil blowout that has killed numerous animals and contaminated a lake, forest, and muskeg at its operations in Cold Lake, Alta.

The documents indicate that, since cleanup started in May, some 26,000 barrels of bitumen mixed with surface water have been removed, including more than 4,500 barrels of bitumen.

The scientist said Canadian Natural Resources is not disclosing the scope of spills in four separate sites, which have been off bounds to media and the public because the operations are on the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range, where there is active weapons testing by the Canadian military.

The documents and photos show dozens of animals, including beavers and loons, have died, and that 30,600 kg of oily vegetation has been cleared from the latest of the four spill zones.

The company’s operations use an “in situ” or underground extraction technology called “cyclic steam stimulation,” which involves injecting thousands of gallons of superhot, high-pressure steam into deep underground reservoirs. This heats and liquefies the hard bitumen and creates cracks through which the bitumen flows and is then pumped to the surface.

The scientist, who asked not to be named for fear of losing their job, said the operation was in chaos.

“Everybody (at the company and in government) is freaking out about this,” said the scientist. “We don’t understand what happened. Nobody really understands how to stop it from leaking, or if they do they haven’t put the measures into place.”